In addition to the traditional open-chest treatment of patent foramen ovale, interventional surgery has become the main method of treatment for patent foramen ovale. With the development of medical technology, very few patients with patent foramen ovale require open-heart surgery, except for contraindications to interventional treatment. So let’s now talk about a question that many patients are concerned about, that is, how effective is the interventional treatment of patent foramen ovale. Before discussing this issue, let us first explain the medical history of interventional treatment for patent foramen ovale. From the early days with the Amplatzer atrial defect parachute and after 2002 with the special blocker for oval foramen occlusion interventions to block 32 patients with paradoxical embolism with oval foramen occlusion technical success rate was 100%. onorato et al. had a mean follow-up of 19 months and an overall blocking rate of 98.1%, and the literature reports a technical success rate of 98% to 100% for various devices to close oval foramen occlusion. Residual shunts and recurrent cerebral embolism have been significantly reduced, confirming the effectiveness of blocking the unclosed foramen ovale to prevent cerebral infarction. However, the incidence of residual shunts was as high as 21% after early blocking parachute surgery and the rate of recurrent paradoxical thrombosis in the following year was 3.4%, which were associated with blocking parachute. saver reported that the incidence of residual shunts 6 months after transcatheter closure of unclosed foramen ovale was 5.5% and the rate of recurrent paradoxical thrombosis in the following year was 3.3%. Sievert observed that paradoxical thrombosis occurred only after the application of older generation blocking devices such as the Sideris button patch and the Angel-Wings device. Newer generation blocking devices such as the Cardio-SEAL blocker, Star-Flex blocker and Amplatzer blocker occur less frequently. Possible complications of interventional therapy include the following: (i) No serious complications were found with blocking of patent foramen ovale (ii) Intraoperative transient episodic atrial premature beats, atrial tachycardia, atrial fibrillation, etc. (iii) Asymptomatic thrombus formation on the surface of the blocker (iv) Fracture of the metal skeleton during follow-up, in 288 cases in Sievert clinical study there were 2 Sideris blockers, 1 AngelWing blocker, 4 ASDOS blockers, 1 CardioSEAL blocker, and 17 oval foramen ovale unclosed CStar blockers. Metal skeleton fractures ( Fractures ) were found during the maximum 17 months of follow-up. (v) Infection, hemorrhage, atrial perforations ( Perforations ), shunting ( Shunting ), embolization ( Embolization ), etc. In patients with Amplatzer oval foramen ovale occlusion, individual patients experienced postoperative chest discomfort, panic, and an increase in sinus heart rate by 20 beats compared to normal on electrocardiogram, and were found to have occasional premature atrial contractions, most of which disappeared within 24 hours. In general, the interventional techniques for the treatment of patent foramen ovale are very mature. The success rate of treatment for patent foramen ovale in tertiary or tertiary hospitals in some developed regions of China has basically reached 100%. Therefore, it can be said that the treatment effect is good.